tweak

And wood tones.
You are absolutely right. I've  totally given up on trying to discuss with him now.
He ignores my questions but demand I answer his.
I tried in various ways explain that some full frame cameras cant use higher ISOs than small sensor cameras (it varies from camera to camera).
I tried to explain that not everyone is willing to change shutter speed because that effects the motion blur.
I tried to explain that for example a 12mm lens is more likely to have barrel distortion than a 35mm.
I clearly showed (what most of us know) that exposure doesn't change with sensor size, the notion that crop factor applies to aperture is a myth.

But most of all he doesn't comprehend that this is for ME and not HIM. If he don't give a rats about ISO noise, use NDs or only shoot landscapes then that's fine.
If DOF is all that matters then he can go ahead and calculate any way he wants. I don't care.

But I do care about the endless amount of beginners contacting me and asking if its true that their phone can do everything that a FF can.
Or the countless beginners who are told that they shouldn't consider for example a BMPCC because they then "need a f1.8 lens just to match the exposure of a f4". Only to find out later that it was total BS and that exposure remains the same.
Not to mention the guys (in my experience most girls just shoot and don't go on about meaningless specs as much as guys) who says "there is no wide angle for the BMPCC" just because they don't get that comparing formats is totally useless. A 12mm on s16 is a wide lens and the shooter shouldn't give a crap about what a 12mm looks like on an old box camera with glass plates and a gunpowder flash.
They should learn to use their camera.. that's all.
So your right Tweak. In order to remain sane I will stop trying. He can believe and think what ever he wants.

 

I'm more annoyed by a bad gimbal than handheld jitters

Funniest thing I know, and that happens all the time. At least once a week:
Someone tells me that camera X is much better and produces better images than camera Y and calls me an "idiot" (or much worse) for using camera X.
I ask them to send me an example of the images.
They say "sure" and send me 7... or 12%... or a graph......

Im sorry but charts can suck my balls

I changed my mind about getting a Sony A7s, Im going back to Leica instead (fingers crossed on finding a cheap SL).
Therefor there was a risk that review would just fade away and never get done (don't have much time for YT anymore).
So I decided to just finish it with what I have so far and when I do get the Leica version and have tested all my lenses and such I will make a revisit review.
Do I think you should you buy it?
Well that depends. Im certainly very glad I have it. I love it. Like seriously, Love It!
For others I say:
YES if you are an analog MF shooter that has lenses.
YES if you are an A7/Leica shooter that want to get into analog MF as well.
YES if you are an A7/Leica shooter that loves vintage glass and experimentation.
MAYBE if you are primarily a digital shooter that wants some fast portrait lenses or just happen to have $500 burning a hole in your pocket.
NO if you think DOF is everything.
NO if you think megapixels is tha shit!
Pros:
The awesome MF lenses! $500 isn’t much to give another dimension to your camera. Quality is great. 80mm f1.9 at x0.7 crop is awesome. Its the Medium Format Experience on the cheap. Cons:
If you don’t have an interest in MF film it becomes niche. No AF. Some MF lenses are quite big. Not all MF lenses focus to infinity (according to rumor, all of mine does). $500 is still $500 and used once aren’t gonna be very common.

Nikon 35-70mm f3.5 Macro works great for me. It zooms internally, so it sitting with the scope on rails work great. I'd have to check Focus, as I use this with a single focus solution.  Shot this with this set up on a RED Dragon. 
 

I tried to find this already. As you say almost all have some issue or two. All will extend pretty much and if they don't the front will rotate. Let me know if you find one. A few Olympus lenses get close.

Next time you're about to "lol" and "LYFAO" at people on the internet (and in real life) that are civilly attempting to clarify your misconceptions, it would be better for all concerned if you took the time to ask yourself, "Well, do I really know what I think I know?". This is good advice for everybody, me included, so don't take it personally.

More pics and video please @Mattias Burling.

First of all, you didn't even make the test so I could just tell you "No way" right there and then.
But you are in luck, I'm not small minded.
So here is a chance for you at the $100.
Look at the test I made yesterday with the two pictures of the same flowers and identical settings apart from the "equivalent" lens.
Convince me that my eyes are wrong and that one of the pictures isn't darker than the other.

Do that and you have proven to me that the "equivalent" lens thing is at least slightly for real (there are still going to be plenty of things that separates a lens from another imo).
I post new pics every day on my Instagram since getting the adapter and have uploaded a quick video test.
Just sold my A7 five minutes ago so the next video will be after I have bought an A7s.
It might be a while because as some of you may know, I pay very very little for my gear compared to retail and list prices.
Sniffing out a deal sometimes takes a little time and dedication
(plenty of more stills to come though)

More pics and video please @Mattias Burling.

Even crappy jpegs look decent pretty much straight from camera.

Could you guys continue your cocksword fighting elsewhere? This is a thread dedicated to the kipon speedbooster review by mattias.

Yes. Except you miss the point again and again, which is a lens only works for it's intended image circle (and full look) on a certain size format... Thus if you like a lens that is designed for a FF format when used on FF, then it indeed has that "FF look" (as non-descriptive as that is). Your definitions are your definitions, whether you wish people used other terms or not is irrelevant, because they don't and is the reason you are in the perpetual argument now. (It's the same thing as me telling you that "look" is not the right word to describe equivalency, then you telling me that it is  .)

I always just use the shutter release button on the front , never the small red video button

Because he wanted to win an Internet forum argument, so obvious.

Back to topic, an imax shot presumely shot with the mamiya 80 1.9 (it does cover, I've tried it).
 

I think people use the terms "full-frame sensor" and "full-frame lens" and "full-frame look" and "APS-C lens/look" and "APS-C sensor" etc. interchangeably because sometimes you can't use one without the other.  Strictly speaking, the sensor is just the method of capture.  I don't think it has anything to do with the "look", per se. 

Wasn't the whole point of this thread, originally, to show what this adaptor can do i.e. allow people with FF cameras to adapt MF lenses to a different sensor & allow them to use these lenses the way they were meant to be used?
Perhaps I'm just being silly here?
I personally do not really like using speed boosters on the Pocket cam - I bought it because of its physical size, the S16 sensor size (which was more to do with nostalgia), ProRes HQ & the price!
I use anamorphics to get a wider FOV & step back a little.
I hate wide angle lenses.
Oh, and i'm the guy that refers to a 24mm lens as a 24mm lens, regardless of what sensor i'm using it on!

And its all about taste. I mostly use small sensor cameras and usually a bit older with noisier ISOs (but its important to note that larger sensor does not make for less noise. There are examples of it going both ways and depending on mega pixels etc). 
But I prefer a little noise over the blurry images I would get by adjusting my shutter speed.

In 99% of all images I take the shutter speed is locked. It can't be tampered with.
In 70% the aperture is also locked.
The only parameter I change maybe 50% of the times is ISO.
 

What you actually thought photography/ film was an art form? Foolish hippie, cameras will always only be about specs and hard science! - And onwards we shall go, leaping and bounding through mathematic correctness forth the race to 16K!!!

Ive said many times through out the thread that I will have tests in the review since you asked for it.

But your right, its definitely laziness that makes me want to spend my Sunday doing something else than tests to show that there are differences, disadvantages and advantages to different sensor sizes/film sizes.

And its just my ego blocking me when say what Ive always said: You don't need a Full Frame or APS-C. A s16/1" like the BMPCC or RX100 will get you very far.
A wide angle down have to be a 15mm on Full Frame. A 18mm on s16 is still a wide angle, within the format. Be creative.
SDOF isn't a problem either. And no, exposure doesn't change with sensor size so do not apply crop factor to aperture.
And Im obviously just into arguing when I say that, some lenses have different artifacts than others. Wide angles for example have a tendency to be more likely to have fish eye distortion, depending on price and manufacturer. If you have a larger sensor you can use longer lenses and are more likely to not get such artifacts on a random lens.
So enough talk here is a test.
Both images have the same settings accept for the Equivalent focal length and aperture. Both are straight from camera. Both are jpeg. Im not gonna say which is which. And Im not gonna give comments on what I see. Its better people get to make up their own minds.
Ok I will say one thing, IMO, and thats just my opinion, you don't have to agree.
But I can't help but feeling that I find one of the images slightly darker than the other. 
I know, I know, its impossible since I used an equivalent lens and there is no difference between systems or sizes what so ever.
Its just a feeling.


Everyone can comment as they choose accept @jcs who needs to have a test in every post according to his own rules that he set after deciding for us that this from now on is a scientific debate and nothing else.
"Anyone wanting to continue arguing without doing these tests for themselves is either lazy, blocked by their ego, or just enjoys arguing."
Because I realize now that photography is a science and not an art form. A 20mp camera is always superior to a 18mp no matter what the other specs of the camera is. And everyone has to eat the same ice cream or they are idiots. 
I have seen the light.
(BTW I posted a quick video test yesterday if someone is interested they know where it is. Please read description first)
 
PS.

 

This is awesome, I love how everyone constantly contradicts themselves and are arguing in circles about things I don't really think anyone here disagrees on for the most part. 

www.tferradans.com/anacalc/go :D
aaaand http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8330
it's not that you CAN'T go beyond 85mm, is just that image quality starts to drop considerably.

may I ask why you spam here with at least 3 listings of the same lens??? it's too much man

That's the reason a cinema lens costs so much more compared to photo lens with the same specs, and yes... it's very nice to have. I've worked a lot with Cooke and Zeiss cinema primes and those are marvellous, but this time they're way out of budget. Fast and sharp on a "low budget" is key here. Anamorphic would be amazing and suite the project well, but there seems to be no good way of pairing these criteria. Maybe Letus AnamorphX would do the job, but then there's the budget issue again...